Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • SLIDE 1 Bruno: Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. I am Bruno Ronsivalle and I am R&D manager in ABI, the Italian Banking Association. Marisa: Good afternoon, I am Marisa Orlando and I work as instructional designer in Label Formazione, an Italian training company. Today, we are going to talk about a new Instructional design model, ID4C (Instructional design for competencies). [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 2 Bruno Well, let’s start! The macro design of learning paths is a complex process that includes methodological considerations about the definition of learning outcomes in terms of competencies. [clic] In fact, instructional designers must identify several variables, for example instructional objectives, course macrostructure, learning strategies et cetera. [clic] But how is it possible to evaluate the quality of a learning path? In other words, which criteria allow distinguishing an effective plan from a no-effective one, when the course results are not verified yet? [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 3 Marisa Instructional design activities are very important not only [ clic ] to assure students learning effectiveness [ clic ] but also to guarantee that contents delivery is actually effective. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 4 Marisa But which criteria can assure the quality of a learning path? [ clic ] A first guarantee is a strong design method with a scientific reference. [ clic ] A second strength is the connection of the model to the technical competencies of instructional designers. [ clic ] A third element is the specialization level of the design phases, and the distinction between macro and micro dimension. [ clic ] The last factor is the relevance of the macro design phase results in relation with the formulation of coherent guidelines for micro designers activities. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 5 Bruno So, we think that to be effective a macro design model must: [ clic ]
  • assess instructional objectives in terms of observable behaviours; [ clic ]
  • be coherent with the learning needs analysis; [ clic ]
  • describe the relation between mental models and behaviours; [ clic ]
  • represent the objectives flow, propaedeutic factors, cognitive weight and their relevance of each of them; [ clic ]
  • include a conversion system (expressed by EQF levels) to describe instructional objectives as competencies; [ clic ]
  • provide as final output a draft of the learning path; [ clic ]
  • formally describe the contents; [ clic ]
  • generate time and costs compatible with the actual needs of organizations. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 6 Marisa The main aim of this presentation is describing our analysis and research activities [ clic ] to define a new macro design model – ID4C – Instructional Design For Competencies [ clic ] and get an effective answer to the need of a rigorous and scientific model. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 7 Marisa The methodology we adopted is articulated in four phases: [ clic ] One. The selection of two macro design models: the model ‘ISD’ by Dick, Carey and Carey, and the Italian model by Ronsivalle, Carta and Metus, currently used by our design team; [ clic ] the analysis and the application of these models to a concrete case; [ clic ] the compared analysis of the two models; [ clic ] the definition of the ID4C model. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 8 Bruno Well, let’s give an example: we have to create this course: [ clic ] “Introduction to Interactive Whiteboard basic functionalities” [ clic ] a Media Education course addressed to high school teachers. Then, let’s go to see the proposals of an American Instructional Designer and of an Italian one… After that, we will be able to make some considerations…[ clic ]
  • SLIDE 9 Bruno Let’s start with the American proposal… [ clic ] The ISD model of Dick, Carey and Carey is a milestone among instructional design theories. [ clic ] The ‘learning domains’ defined by Gagné are the model reference taxonomy. They allow classifying the general course objective according to the related learning type. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 10 Bruno The design process consists of 10 phases: each of them is equivalent to a single component of the system. In relation with our goals, our analysis focused on the following macro design activities: [ clic ] Instructional Analysis; [ clic ] Target and context analysis; [ clic ] Write Performance Objectives. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 11 Bruno According to this model, the American Instructional Designer suggests to conduct as first activity [ clic ] the definition of the “Goal Statement”, the main objective of the course, in this case is: ‘at the end of the path the student will be able to describe the basic functionalities of Interactive Whiteboard’. [ clic ] The second step is linking the Goal Statement to one of the four ‘learning domains’ defined by Gagné. In this case the Goal Statement is classified as ‘Intellectual Skill’. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 12 Bruno At this point, the main steps the user must achieve to get the Instructional Goal are identified: [ clic ] describing the elements composing the Basic Kit; illustrating the functionalities; describing the principal typologies. [ clic ] Each step is declined in other steps with sub-skills. [ clic ] Entry behaviours and, if necessary, Verbal Information are also defined. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 13 Marisa Very interesting! But now, let’s go to see the proposal of the Italian Instructional Designer: [ clic ] Ronsivalle, Carta, and Metus model is currently used in Italy by many organizations. [ clic ] The model adopts a cognitivist interpretation of the learning objectives taxonomy by the integration of Bloom, Anderson, Marzano and Romiszowski models.[ clic ]
  • SLIDE 14 Marisa Also in this case, let’s focus on the macro design phases: [ clic ] the representation of the knowledge system; [ clic ] the description of the indicators structure; [ clic ] the assignment of complexity and semantic density levels to the indicators; [ clic ] the creation of a macro evaluation system; [ clic ] and the definition of the course structure. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 15 Marisa The application of the model generates three outputs. [ clic ] the first is the conceptual map. It represents the final knowledge system of the user. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 16 Marisa the second output is the instructional objectives tree and the assessment system. [ clic ] As you can see, from the main objective, the Instructional Designer defines a hierarchic structure inclusive of all observable behaviours. [ clic ] According to Bloom taxonomy, she attributes the complexity and the semantic density levels to each objective. [ clic ] Then, she can plan the assessment activities. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 17 Marisa At the end, she elaborates the macrostructure, that is the logical structure of the course: [ clic ] two e-learning units [ clic ] and their delivery unit, in this case by screen mode. [ clic ] The macro structure also includes the assessment macro system. [ clic]
  • SLIDE 18 Bruno The analysis of the two models allows us underlining when and how the requirements get satisfied. [ clic ] Let’s now try to define the integration points related to the functional features of the models. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 19 Bruno Let’s begin with the assessment phase. [ clic ] In the American proposal the assessment focuses some objectives clusters [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 20 Bruno while in the Italian, single objectives are evaluated in a more accurate way. In this sense, the Ronsivalle, Carta and Metus model is more oriented to the learning assessment. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 21 Marisa The assessment subject is strongly connected to another problem concerning instructional objectives. [ clic ] In fact the American proposal includes a detailed objectives description but doesn’t provide any information about their cognitive weight, with the exception of the general one. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 22 Marisa In the Italian proposal, the cognitive weight of every objective is defined by the complexity and semantic density levels attribution. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 23 Bruno This facet is useful to define the structure of the learning path. [ clic ] On the other hand, the tree representation of the objectives presented by the Italian proposal shows two critical points: [ clic ] first, the difficulty of interpretation non-insiders show. [ clic ] The second problem is related to the loss of information. In fact, the tree is not clear about the sequential objectives hierarchy. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 24 Bruno In this sense, the flow-chart is the best way to work with the external actors of the process. [ clic ] In this way, then designers can directly define the logical structure of the course, establishing an immediate relation between the flow and the learning path. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 25 Marisa Another important point is about the states of mind integration in the description of the learning objectives. [ clic ] In the American model concepts are integrated in the flow-chart by declining all skills and indicating the Verbal Information. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 26 Marisa In Ronsivalle, Carta and Metus model [ clic ] the conceptual map is the output of the contents analysis. Combining the existing conceptual structures in the flow is one of the most interesting integration points of the two models. In this way, it’s possible to precisely define the relation between objectives and contents. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 27 Bruno None of the models, anyway, defines the definition of the EQF complexity levels. [ clic ] In order to satisfy such requirement, it’s essential to translate the instructional objectives taxonomy as in EQF schemes. Our proposal includes the definition of a translation matrix able to represent a large range of combinations between. [ clic ] the knowledge dimension; [ clic ] the elaboration one; [ clic ] the application one. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 28 Bruno Thanks to this translation matrix [ clic ] it’s possible to translate the didactic objective taxonomies. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 29 Marisa So, which is our proposal? [ clic ] The application of the ID4C model aims to get a single output integrating all macro design activities. This output is composed by: [ clic ] the conceptual map; [ clic ] the instructional objective flow-chart representing conceptual maps and the assessment system; [ clic ] the flow-chart representing the learning path. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 30 Bruno The first level is the contents analysis results, as in Italian model. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 31 Marisa The second level integrates the flow-chart of the American model with conceptual map fragments and complexity and semantic density levels. It also includes the identification of the assessment tests. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 32 Bruno Then the course structure can be finally defined by the assessment phase, the didactic units sequence and the delivery unit identification. Marisa [ clic ] Thanks to the translation matrix and the conversion table [ clic ] we can attribute the 1° EQF level to the course main objective. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 33 Bruno The last proposal shows how the ID4C model can satisfy all the requirements defined.
  • SLIDE 34 Bruno Unlike the two other models, it can provide a single output integrating all macro design activities: [ clic ] the instructional objectives description; [ clic ] the representation of the objective logical-temporal flow; [ clic ] the description of the mental models related to the observable behaviours thanks to conceptual maps; [ clic ] the attribution of complexity and semantic density levels; [ clic ] the translation of the general complexity level to the corresponding EQF level; [ clic ] the individuation of the different didactic activities; [ clic ] the definition of the assessment tests and their delivery modalities. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 35 Marisa What we get is a comprehensive didactic system where all elements are analytically detailed. [ clic ] Now, the output is ready to get used in the micro design phase: the micro designers can easily interpret all the variables to create didactic units, storyboards and learning objects, manage activities and design assessment tests. [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 36 Bruno Moreover the ID4C model, as result of the integration of two existing and successfully applied models, is perfectly in line [ clic ] with the economic needs of the production activities and the market logic as well. That’s all! [ clic ]
  • SLIDE 37 Bruno : Than you for your time. Marisa : Thank you.
  • Progettazione

    1. 1. ID4C(Instructional Design for Competencies):an EQF compliant model forlearning paths designGaetano Bruno RonsivalleMarisa Orlando12thAnnual International Conference Education, 24-27 May 2010, Athens
    2. 2. Instructional ObjectivesCourse MacrostructureLearning Strategies…How evaluate the quality of alearning path?Which criteria?Macro-design
    3. 3. EffectivenessInstructionalactivities
    4. 4. 1. Scientific referencetheoretical frame2. Instructional DesignerCompetencies3. Macro and Micro dimension4. Coherent guidelinesfor micro designers activitiesCriteria
    5. 5. Requirements
    6. 6. AssessmentorientationRequirements
    7. 7. Learningneeds analysisRequirementsAssessmentorientation
    8. 8. RequirementsMental models andbehavioursLearningneeds analysisAssessmentorientation
    9. 9. RequirementsInstructionalobjectives flowMental models andbehavioursLearningneeds analysisAssessmentorientation
    10. 10. RequirementsInstructionalobjectives flowMental models andbehavioursLearningneeds analysisDefinition ofEQF levels
    11. 11. RequirementsInstructionalobjectives flowMental models andbehavioursDefinition ofEQF levelsCourse structure
    12. 12. RequirementsInstructionalobjectives flowls andoursDefinition ofEQF levelsCourse structure Contents
    13. 13. Requirementsctionalves flowDefinition ofEQF levelsCourse structure Contents Effectiveness andsustainability
    14. 14. ID4CInstructional Designfor CompetenciesCriteria + RequirementsObjective
    15. 15. 1. Selection of twomacro designmodels2. Analysis and theapplication ofthese models3. Comparedanalysis of thetwo models4. Definition ofthe ID4C modelMethodology
    16. 16. Media EducationIntroduction to IWB(Interactive Whiteboard)basic functionalitiesTarget:High SchoolTeachersAn example…
    17. 17. ISD:InstructionalSystemsDevelopmentTaxonomy:Gagnè“LearningDomains”The American proposal
    18. 18. IdentifyInstructionalGoal (s)ConductInstructionalAnalysisAnalyzeLearnersand ContextWritePerformanceObjectivesDevelopAssessmentInstrumentsDevelopInstructionalStrategyDevelop andselectInstructionalMaterialsDesign andconductFormativeEvaluationDesign andconductSummativeEvaluationReviseInstruction
    19. 19. Goal Statment:“At the end of the path thestudent will be able to describethe basic functionalities of IWB”.IntellectualSkill
    20. 20. Ronsivalle,Carta andMetusTaxonomy:Bloom,Anderson,Marzano andRomiszowskiThe Italian proposal
    21. 21. Homogenousobjectives clustersAssessment phase
    22. 22. Selection of theObjectivesto be evaluatedAssessment phase
    23. 23. Cognitive weightonly forthe general objectiveInstructional objectives
    24. 24. Cognitive weight:complexityandsemantic density levelsInstructional objectives
    25. 25. Objectives treeCritical points:1. Interpretation2. Loss of informationInstructional objectivesStructure
    26. 26. Flow chart:1.Easy interpretation2.Logical SequenceInstructional objectivesStructure
    27. 27. Contents integratedin the flow chart(Skills andVerbal Information)Contents
    28. 28. Conceptual map:student’s finalmental modelContents
    29. 29. Definitionof EQF levelsKnowledge Elaboration ApplicationAtomic MentalModelsAnalysisReproduction withsupportLogicalConnectionsSynthesisAutonomousreproductionNomicRelationshipsEvaluationOrientation toobjectiveProbabilisticConditionsCreationStrategicbehaviour
    30. 30. Definitionof EQF levelsTranslationmatrix KEA BloomAndersonMediaEducationEQFK E A1 - 1 1 - -2 - 1 2 1 12 1 1 3 1 22 1 2 4 2 33 2 2 5 2 43 2 3 5 2 53 3 3 6 3 64 3 4 6 4 74 4 4 6 5 8
    31. 31. Our proposal: ID4C
    32. 32. Our proposal: ID4CI Level:The conceptualmap
    33. 33. Our proposal: ID4CII Level:The Instructionalobjective flow-chart
    34. 34. Our proposal: ID4CTranslationmatrix KEABloomAndersonMediaEducationEQFK E A2 - 1 2 1 1III Level:The Learningpath
    35. 35. 1.Instructional objectivesdescription2. Representation of theobjectivelogical-temporal flow3. Description of themental models(conceptual maps)4. Attribution ofcomplexity and semanticdensity levels5. EQF level6. Individuation of thedifferent didacticactivities7. Definition of theassessment tests andtheir delivery
    36. 36. Guidelines formicro designers activities
    37. 37. Sustainability and feasibilityof ID4C Model
    38. 38. 12thAnnual International Conference Education, 24-27 May 2010, Athensευχαριστώ!